VicenzaPiù - Notizie, Inchieste, Analisi su Vicenza e provincia

Dede

*applause for Katz*Adrian: And there?s a strong inenctive to believe in a scientific utopia as a solution to GW if it obviates us from the necessity to change our behaviours. Seriously, Adrian, I'd like to know what you think will solve GW if not science? A wishin' and a hopin'? Writing on blogs?It's humans engaged in science who've enabled us to even perceive the problem. What else can solve it?As for the need to change our behaviours, again, that gets back very close to the original point of Don Arthur's article, and Mark's reason for citing it here What kind of behavioural changes are you talking about? People need somewhere to live, something to do, access to health and leisure. Who decides what's appropriate? Clive Hamilton?Remember relative poverty is as degrading to human dignity as is absolute poverty. Against the urgent backdrop of planetary survival, (surely the strongest of ethical claims), you must also balance the ethical claims of free human beings who need somewhere to live and something to do, and also the ethics of authority and coercion. An ethic that places the planet above human needs, arguing from a position of guilt and authority (as Hamilton does) is not going to get very far. An ethic that can encompass environmental concerns as complementary and additive to human needs and dignity, will be on surer ground.I think on a macro-scale our behaviour is already very different from that of earlier societies: we have identified a looming problem and instead of sacrificing goats or children to appease the gods, we're applying foresight, rationality and scientific endeavour in an attempt to head it off.Industrially, we've stopped much of the egregious polluting behavior of factories that dogged much of the mid-20th century. Whole regions of land and water have been rehabilitated from previous biologically dead' states. Large cities have much cleaner air and water than a generation ago. Fish have returned to Manhattan's east river (actually, there's far more wildlife around Manhattan than you find in suburban Sydney, but that's another story.)In households, the last few decades have seen enormous behavioural changes in many developed cities in terms of recycling, reduced packaging, public transport use, rainwater collection and grey water use. Cities that never had them are getting mass transit systems even Bangkok and LA. Meanwhile, the struggle of people in the developing world to achieve a standard of living that is higher than miserable, grinding poverty continues, and is deserving of ethical consideration among your calls for us all to change our behaviour .If you're proposing to micro-manage the behaviour of people, how far do you wish to take it? And to what end? Isn't it better that we address the remaining bulk of the problem at the point where the bulk of it occurs in the source of our industrial methods of agriculture, production and energy generation'? Please, please consider once more the original point Don Arthur made that it's fundamentally self-indulgent, and ethically unconscionable, for wealthy educated people to lecture the rest of the world about the need to change their behaviour to save the planet.

nalaxrc

GHOorl wclyqjpvyyve

Awo

Mercurius An ethic that can encompass enntvonmerial concerns as complementary and additive to human needs and dignity, will be on surer ground. Actually I don't think it's really a matter of whether we decide to encompass the natural world Mercurius. We seem to be completely dependent on a wide range of basic biological and geochemical processes whether we want to accept that or not. I can agree with the critique of some of Hamilton's style and moralising. Though I actually find the micro-manage legalistic-moralistic approach to human affairs seems a quite popular solution' which many people and public figures make these days (even here at times). Whether that is moralising over affluenza' or making rules and subsidising (financially and morally) ever more consumerism and useless plastic crap to fill the oceans with The first signs that in a resource depleted world people are starting to jump to what seems like a simple solution, fine/imprison/kill/tazer the ignorant/bad/dangerous others and we'll all be fine?Sounds like a descent into conflict more than a solution..Being a nature observer, it seems self evident to me that whilst some comfort and attention helps things prosper. Too much comfort is really quite unhealthy and I think this shows in modern consumer culture (diabetes, depression, anxiety, obesity etc). Challenges are really what gives people resilience, experience and knowledge of themselves and the world. Just as the wind and weather builds firmness in trees. Mollycoddle things and they grow soft, weak and unable to face the normal variation and realities of life. OK the odd branch breaks sometimes, but again, this is perhaps the true reality of things, such is life. Better to suffer an injury and learn, or become such a soft sucker that the smallest change in circumstances proves intolerable and fatal? The statements about the wonders of science and human accomplishments getting us through seems wildly optimistic and frankly ill-informed. Human progress seems to me to have been a complex weaving path where luck as played as significant role as insight. I know it's hard for any of us to imagine that what we have now won't always be here. Though probably the only certainty is that aside from us all being dead one day. Everything will be completely different, and we (humanity) may very well not be a part of it. For real.

bgkvwa

7lWfMp , [url=http://hisaccmlawhd.com/]hisaccmlawhd[/url], [link=http://nshukulaauis.com/]nshukulaauis[/link], http://ncvkhkrljlno.com/

lypjigrrzi

mrxs17 qpfxjhvswffo